john w k

BST Users
  • Content count

    776
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About john w k

  • Rank
    Elite Member
  1. What you are disagreeing with is the definition of "income" as it appears in our Constitution, the characterizes of which are profit and or gain, collective referred to as "income". Income from a business which was wholly illegal was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were subjected to a tax in that case. And, in Sullenger vs. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 1076 (1948) the Court allowed the business owner [who made illegal purchases of meat] to deduct the cost of meat purchased at a higher price then set by the Office of Price Administration, a World War II price control agency, which he then resold for profit. The “income” from those sales was being taxed which was at issue in the case. The Court went on to cite Sullivan and concluded: “No authority has been cited for denying to this taxpayer the cost of goods sold in computing his profit, which profit alone is gross income for income tax purposes.” JWK They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create
  2. You do not agree with what? Are you really suggesting a wage earner does not have outlays and expenses to meet in providing their labor to an employee, the value of which must be deducted to calculate and alleged profit or gain? How about a New York City resident’s transportation costs to and from work, or the costs involved with providing the necessities of life or medical expenses which a wage earner incurs which makes their labor possible? Shouldn't the wage earned not be allowed to deduct these costs from gross receipts in calculating his/her profit or gain? How about the eight hour of life which a working person invests in earning a wage? Is this not to be considered as a capital outlay, the value of which ought to be deducted by the wage earner from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain? If a working person's labor which they surrender to an emploee has no ascertainable value, then why are business owners allowed to deduct the cost of labor they purchase from gross receipts when calculating their taxable profit or gain? Why does the business owner get to deduct the value of labor and not the wage earner who has surrendered it when calculating an alleged profit? Can you not yet see how immoral and arbitrary an "income" tax is and especially so when impose upon hard working wage earners? Why does Senator Cruz support this immoral and arbitrary tax? JWK “…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
  3. Now wait a second. You suggest a business owner would be taxed on their income, same as the employees. The truth is, a business gets to deduct all outlays and expenses from gross receipts to arrive at their taxable income. If a business owner gets to deduct all necessary expenses and outlays from gross receipts to arrive at "taxable income", why shouldn't a wage earner be able to also deduct all necessary expenses and outlays from gross receipts to arrive at their taxable "income"? Shouldn't a working person be allowed to deduct transportation costs to and from work in calculated their profit or gain? How about the costs involved with providing the necessities of life or medical expenses which a wage earner incurs which makes their labor possible? Shouldn't the wage earned be allowed to deduct these costs from gross receipts in calculating his/her profit or gain? How about the eight hour of life which a working person invests in earning a wage? Is this not to be considered as a capital outlay, the value of which ought to be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain? Do you now see one of the reasons why a flat tax on "incomes" is an arbitrary and immoral system of taxation? Under a flat tax on incomes the constitutional meaning of what is and what is not taxable incomes is a vital question which must be answered. Seems to me the meaning of taxable “income” boils down to profits and or gains, collectively called “income”. And to arrive at one’s “income” all necessary outlays and expenses must be deducted from gross receipts to arrive at one’s “income”. Income from a business which was wholly illegal was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were subjected to a tax in that case. And, in Sullenger vs. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 1076 (1948) the Court allowed the business owner [who made illegal purchases of meat] to deduct the cost of meat purchased at a higher price then set by the Office of Price Administration, a World War II price control agency, which he then resold for profit. The “income” from those sales was being taxed which was at issue in the case. The Court went on to cite Sullivan and concluded: “No authority has been cited for denying to this taxpayer the cost of goods sold in computing his profit, which profit alone is gross income for income tax purposes.” So, what is the cost of goods sold by a wage earner? is it not his/her time, labor, skills, etc? The value of which must be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain? JWK "The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
  4. See: President Obama endorses mandatory voting ”In a recent speech, President Obama endorsed the idea of making voting mandatory. It isn’t clear whether he intends to actively push the idea. But he does suggest that it would be an improvement over the status quo:” Actually, Obama’s objective here is another distraction to get people to argue with themselves while he conspires behind closed doors to do more damage to America, an example being his trade deal being cooked up with China behind closed doors, and which he wants to impose upon America using fast track trade authority. Of course, our Fifth Column news media helps with Obama’s distraction by making a big deal over a mandatory vote proposal which could not even happen unless a constitutional amendment is passed. But it is a good distraction and almost every news media outlet is babbling on and on about it and not one story on Obama’s secret trade deal being cooked up with China. JWK To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.
  5. Why confine the tax on businesses to profits, and not do the same for wage earners? Under a flat tax on incomes the constitutional meaning of what is and what is not taxable incomes is a vital question which must be answered. Seems to me the meaning of taxable “income” boils down to profits and or gains, collectively called “income”. And to arrive at one’s “income” all necessary outlays and expenses must be deducted from gross receipts to arrive at one’s “income”. Income from a business which was wholly illegal was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were subjected to a tax in that case. And, in Sullenger vs. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 1076 (1948) the Court allowed the business owner [who made illegal purchases of meat] to deduct the cost of meat purchased at a higher price then set by the Office of Price Administration, a World War II price control agency, which he then resold for profit. The “income” from those sales was being taxed which was at issue in the case. The Court went on to cite Sullivan and concluded: “No authority has been cited for denying to this taxpayer the cost of goods sold in computing his profit, which profit alone is gross income for income tax purposes.” So, what is the cost of goods sold by a wage earner? is it not his/her time, labor, skills, etc? The value of which must be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain? Shouldn't a working person be allowed to deduct transportation costs to and from work in calculating their profit or gain? How about the costs involved with providing the necessities of life or medical expenses which a wage earner incurs and makes their labor possible? Shouldn't the wage earned be allowed to deduct these costs from gross receipts in calculating his/her profit or gain? How about the eight hour of life which a working person invests in earning a wage? Is this not to be considered as their property and a capital outlay, the value of which ought to be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain? Do you now see one of the reasons why a flat tax on "incomes" is an arbitrary and immoral system of taxation? JWK "The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
  6. Well, if the majority of the American People are like you and are happy with the slavish and immoral tax they now live under, then you probably are correct. JWK We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.
  7. You would have to explain why. I believe Hamilton is correct with regard to taxing consumption. Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption: “There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised. It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.” Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder’s intended free market system. And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above. Some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21. Finally, under our Constitution’s original tax plan, let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its state’s apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own state’s treasury. The bottom line is, what do you think would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2014 federal deficit? I kind of think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties and big spenders in Congress would REAP THEIR JUST REWARDS for their irresponsible and tyrannical spending. JWK “Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.
  8. And what you call "liberals" are those who have no problem using the force of government to take what others have earned and then transfer it to them for their personal economic needs. JWK There is no magic wand in government force which changes the definition of thievery.
  9. SEE: Sen. Ted Cruz attacks Obama during New Hampshire visit Sun Mar 15, 2015 ”Instead Cruz sketched the outlines of a fledgling platform, calling for a flat tax so that every American can “fill out his or her taxes on a postcard.” I cannot imagine why Senator Cruz, a “conservative” is still promoting as tax reform a direct flat tax on incomes which is an immoral tax that finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797: "History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not." The truth is, a flat tax does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners. It is a discriminatory tax in that it is laid directly upon the individual and measures the amount of tax the individual is to pay based upon their annual earnings which in effect commands our nation’s most productive hard working wage earning citizens and businesses owners to finance the functions of government while the least productive citizen is not required to pay an equal share to support government, or even any share at all! And yet, those who do not contribute to financing the functions of government are allowed to exercise a vote equal to those who do finance the functions of government. Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, and with regard to direct taxes, the rule of apportionment was intended to provide a protection against such an abuse in that each state was required to pay a share of any direct tax proportionally equal to its representation. A flat tax is also arbitrary and capricious in another way. The definition of what is and what is not taxable “income” cannot be set in stone, and must be left to never ending alterations and manipulations which are decided by a Washington Establishment political majority. On the other hand, taxing consumption as our founders intended is far less subject to abuse, and especially so because taxes paid are voluntarily paid by the manner in which one spends their money. Senator Cruz’s tax reform also leaves the door wide open for government to use it as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government. Have we not recently seen how this corruptible system of taxation has been used by political hacks in our federal government to attack freedom loving Americans and interfere with free speech? Finally, the costs involved with a tax calculated from incomes is in itself a reason to abandon it and move to a consumption based tax system. My question to Senator Cruz is, now that “Republicans” control both Houses of Congress, let us not forget it is within their power to actually offer real tax reform, and by this I mean sending to the States an amendment to our Constitution to do away with federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and all other forms of lawfully realized “incomes” and move to a consumption based tax system to fill our national treasury. My preference is the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with: “SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money. So, tell us Senator Cruz, have we not suffered enough under our nation’s experiment with federal taxes calculated from “incomes” to at least consider withdrawing this power and returning to our Constitution’s original tax plan? Would it not be a blessing to the American People if those we elected to Congress during last election would rise to the occasion and introduce a Bill to actually reform our federal tax system by doing away with taxes calculated from incomes and start this important discussion? JWK Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?
  10. And just what is the "truth". JWK When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?
  11. double post deleted. sorry
  12. For starters, we deliver a few new and improved bunker buster bombs to Israel. JWK To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving work permits to millions who have invaded our borders!
  13. And that is not the worst of Obama. In addition Obama has doubled the federal debt; He has given aid and comfort to our enemies by releasing them from GITMO; He is allowing a thousand Islamic "refugees" into the U.S. each month without a requirement to renounce their allegiance to their country of origin, and swear an allegiance to the United States: He has transferred America’s weapons of defense and military technology to hostile Islamic leaders [the Islamic Brother Hood]; He has stood by and allowed an Islamic terrorist state to move forward with producing the component parts for a nuclear arsenal; He has allowed our southern border to be invaded by the poverty stricken populations of Mexico and Central America; He is responsible for undermining our election process by making it easy for ineligible persons to vote; He has interfered with our nation’s ability to develop our natural resources, namely oil, coal and natural gas to fuel our economy; He has worked to stifle America’s agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; He has intentionally sabotaged our nation’s health care delivery system: He has blatantly impinged upon the American People’s inalienable right to make their own choices and decisions regarding their health care and medical needs; He is responsible for a dramatic increase in the number of people receiving food stamps; He is responsible for a dramatic drop in fulltime employment; He is responsible for a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate of our nation’s Black youth; He has used the force of our federal government to tax the paychecks of hard working people living in our nation’s inner cities and then transfer $ billions from our federal treasury to his inner circle friends under the guise of “green energy” [solyndra/Chevy Volt/Fisker, Exelon, etc.]; He has repeatedly circumvented of our Republican Form of Government by issuing Executive Orders and memorandums; He has stood by and allowed his Administration to use the force of the federal government to attack "conservatives" who dare to exercise their right to freedom of speech; JWK Who can truthfully deny Obama is intentionally attempting to destroy America from within and is assisted by our Fifth column news media?
  14. Judging some of you posts in this forum, I take your above personal attack as a compliment! JWK They are not “liberals”. They are conniving parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create